• Hello,

    We all know that there are around so many players who wants a better individual ranking and for this reason, they preffer to join/create small associations and buy cheaper workers.


    I see a problem here and I have a solution to solve this issue.

    I think it is not normal for someones to pay 2.000.000.000 for Roosevelt (50% more prestige) (top 3 assos auction for example) while others buy this worker with 1.000.000 (in a small ranked 85 association).


    At the endof the day, someones payed hundred millions and other opponents payed hundred times less and it is hard for the first ones to be conpetitive at individual.


    But


    what if ...


    top 1-5 assos receives 100% of bonus for worker


    top 6-10 assos receives 75% of bonus for worker


    top 11-20 receives 60%

    Top 21-35 receives 50%

    Top 35-60 receives 40%

    And so on


    So ... the real benefit will be for roosevelt as follows


    top 1-5 = + 50% * 1
    top 6-10 = + 50% * 0.75
    top 11-20 = + 50% * 0.6


    and so on.

    This way, top players will try to play IN competitive teams!



  • It's indeed unfair when people hops around to get extremely cheap workers indeed. Another possible change might be make the EG asso pp be proportional to the time a player stays in the asso.


    Therefore, if a player decides to stay in a small asso to get advantage of very cheap workers, and finally switched to a large asso before EG, he would get just very little --


    Let's say for 2x servers, the system counts the day that you stayed in the EG asso since start of era 4,

    and each day absent results in 4% less pp in EG. (2% per day for normal servers)


    So if you joined the asso before Era 4 day1, no penalty. If you joined only in Era 4 day 3, you only receive 92% as much pp in EG.

    If you joined on the last day, only a pitiful 16% of original pp is left.


    This would still give players some flexibility to pick a good asso for 3 eras (and it isn't really that efficient to start farming pp by then)

    while giving a disadvantage on people who keep switching asso in era 4,5,6.

  • this is realy a very unfair division. Why must the majority get some sort of penalty for a few who are playing the game not at the most fair way but still allowed by the game rules. If you start new you are immediately have disadvantages for workers. Play smarter yourself.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -:engine1::engine1::engine1: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    If a turtle doesn’t have a shell, is he homeless or naked?

  • We are talking about the disadvantage of players in top associations compared to players who are in the top individual and prefer to play in small associations to ensure the benefits of workers at low prices.


    All players start in era 1 from 0. If a player starts the game in era 4 and has no value to join the top associations, he assumes this. It is unlikely that a player starting in era 4 will catch the top 10 individually.


    But, the question remains,

    Does it seem normal for a player in a top association to pay hundreds of millions for the same benefit that a player creates by buying the same worker in a small association for 1 million?


    what is the main purpose of the associations, that of exploiting the rules or that of forming competitive groups in competition?

  • I think you play in a top association with reading your proposals.

    A small association doesn't have most of the time the same priveliges as top asso's. e.g No majorities at industries, no assigned RG, lower city levels, less income etc. So the 1 mil payed by somebody from a small asso might have cost the time to earn as the 100 mil a player of a top asso will earn. You will punish the majority for asmall group who play "smart" in the boundries of the game.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -:engine1::engine1::engine1: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    If a turtle doesn’t have a shell, is he homeless or naked?

  • no one limits the right of small associations to invest and have majorities.

    however, you have to somehow control what the top players do when they choose to buy cheap workers going in small associations.

    a combination of what TabeYuriko said and what I proposed I think is the best solution.

  • I think you play in a top association with reading your proposals.

    A small association doesn't have most of the time the same priveliges as top asso's. e.g No majorities at industries, no assigned RG, lower city levels, less income etc. So the 1 mil payed by somebody from a small asso might have cost the time to earn as the 100 mil a player of a top asso will earn. You will punish the majority for asmall group who play "smart" in the boundries of the game.

    Yes, I am aware that "real" small players in small associations is innocent and they shouldn't be punished.

    The point is to catch the top players intentionally hoping/making small assos to exploit this which was supposed to be protecting the real small players.

    That's why I propose the 4% penalty per day after era4 if they continue to exploit this.

  • It is a very simple matter of market forces, Profesor. In any auction, cyber or RL, the entity being sold will attract only as much as someone is prepared to pay.


    Simple, the current system is fair. If it is unfair to anyone it is unfair to the city builders who cannot accumulate the money that free-hauling prestige hunters can.

  • It is a very simple matter of market forces, Profesor. In any auction, cyber or RL, the entity being sold will attract only as much as someone is prepared to pay.


    Simple, the current system is fair. If it is unfair to anyone it is unfair to the city builders who cannot accumulate the money that free-hauling prestige hunters can.

    Please, read what we are talking about. As TabeYuriko said, I have a problem with those who goes in small associations to buy cheaper workers but they are fighting for top 1 individual. They must be stopped doing this and fight correctly against the other top players,

  • Please, read what we are talking about. As TabeYuriko said, I have a problem with those who goes in small associations to buy cheaper workers but they are fighting for top 1 individual. They must be stopped doing this and fight correctly against the other top players,

    I did. And, the only way that you could implement your idea would be to completely separate the pp hunters from the city builders for the auctions(not practical). Otherwise, you further penalise the city building associations.


    I totally agree that some way needs to be found to stop association hoping for unfair advantage. But making life even harder than it already is for city building associations, by making it more difficult to get the benefit of workers, is not the answer. Most small associations are beginner players and by definition they are mostly city builders. You are talking about a very small, but growing, group of people who have found a way of exploiting the game weaknesses.


    RN really does need to take in hand the whole free-hauling prestige hunting elements of this game, at all levels, in order to restore the balance of fairness for all. It would be much better, imo, to tie prestige more closely to goods hauled to home city. (After all, founding a railway company to develop the best possible city for the end game is what this game is supposed to be about.) And, that would certainly put a stop to association hoping for worker benefits.


    It is absolutely in RNs interest to make life easier and fairer for new players not even harder which, your suggestion most certainly would.


    Last round, I observed dedicated prestige hunters, from several associations of various sizes, continually breaking majorities in order to gain prestige and doing untold damage to the city building associations. Perversely it was the little prestige hunting associations who responded positively when approached about this and very fairly made a point of discontinuing not the big ones, some players of whom actually delivered large quantities of goods off call during the end game, thus destroying waiting times, and regularly broke majorities for the called goods.

  • One of the attractions of the RN game is that there are different styles of play open to the players. They can play in different ways over time, keeping interest high. Workers strangely are an area where there is some balance. Clearly a city team needs to be a strong one to compete but if it has 25 good members there is no reason why they cannot compete for any workers. Additionally the goods based workers are usually only of interest to the city haulers.

    The practice of closing an association & reforming is used by smaller free hauling teams to get cheap workers and it is effective if the team is small but in so doing the players are opting out of the association competition so this affects personal rank only.

    The number of players is what makes playing style work - in a relatively lightly used server then free hauling is very effective. How often does free hauling do well on a really busy server where a majority of cities are active?

    If the aim is to eliminate closing & reforming then a penalty could be imposed on those that do this - losing pp for instance of delaying for several days before they can get workers (might be hard to program though i guess). Small associations playing normally should not be penalised though in the manner suggested - they are in the lower ranks due to being small & have fewer p[layers to contribute so it is fair that they have cheaper workers overall to my mind. If a full 25 player association pays 25 mill then the equivalent for a lower ranked 4 player association is 4 mill. That is paying the same per player.

    Get out of bed - celebrate waking, go to bed - survived another day:thumbsup:

  • We are talking about big differences, as you can see in first attachement on first post (over 2.000.000.000 for roosevelt). In the same time, there were Top 10 players in small associations with the same Rossevelt where they paid 1.000.000.

    This is the problem, they shhould be stopped.

    Maybe, another rule. If the player is top 50 individually, he cannot switch to a small association or if he go to a small asso, then she cannot receive for a few days the benefits from workers.

    We don;t have a problem with the 'real' small associations or with city associations low ranked, but we have a problem with those top 10-20 players who wants to compete with the bests paying only small amounts of money.

  • Professor, I saw that, we dropped out when it got too rich for us, and, if you had been watching you would have seen my association buy the same worker, in the same auction group as yours about 12 hours later, for a tiny fraction of what you paid, around 25,000,000. It was simply a question of timing and luck. (I should have been asleep, insomnia brings some benefits, and I expect you were.) -You were very unfortunate, it is true, as a lot of buyers pushed the price up whereas when I bought later there was very little competition.


    The problem of exploits does exist and it needs to be addressed. The one you refer to was partially addressed a few years back when the ability to switch associations several times a day was removed. That was great with the building upgrade worker, the whole city could benefit with a little organisation. :) Ah well, those were the days. 8).


    Yes, further restrictions on association hoping could well be the answer. But, I still strongly believe that the better solution is to restore the balance between city building associations and free-haulers. I have watched the balance being slowly eroded. Make city building viable again and a lot of the exploits for prestige will lose their appeal. This game is supposed to be equitable for all styles of play. The increase in the problem you are talking about is a symptom of the fact that the balance has been compromised. May see an entirely different crop of exploits, who knows. :/

  • Hm, interestiong point of views. Especially when realizing, that no balance change in the last years was in favour of free-haulers. Reduced profits for person transports, reduced prestige for invests and reduced prestige for waiting time reduction come to my mind without even thinking. ^^

    The one you refer to was partially addressed a few years back when the ability to switch associations several times a day was removed. That was great with the building upgrade worker, the whole city could benefit with a little organisation. Ah well, those were the days. .

    I remember it. Was fun back than. Stacking players with deep pockets in one association and then move half of the cities players through that asso after the successfull bid.Missing that.8)


    Maybe it is because I only play seriously on the german servers, but the mentioned things are no major problems there. And I myself am a city driver and never thought about becoming a free hauler. Free haulers have their own big associations here and fight for place 1 in the association ranking. And will win that most of the time.


    What bothers me here is that players who use the game mechanics are accused of using exploits or cheating (other trhreats). I don't see the clever use of the game mechanics as a problem. Especially when creating new association for cheaper workers has has its own disadvantages.

  • Maybe the correct way to deal with this is we all start doing this exploit instead so more people are aware of this and also start to complain :)

    Or if they still approve this is legit, then we will just win and win again :P

  • Proposal :

    If an individual player's prestige is bigger than the prestige of his association, then, on the upcoming auction, the association joins the auction of the group of teams in the category of HIS (total) prestige, not the associations'.

  • Proposal :

    If an individual player's prestige is bigger than the prestige of his association, then, on the upcoming auction, the association joins the auction of the group of teams in the category of HIS (total) prestige, not the associations'.

    again players get punished for some who are using the game concept in a smarter way as the most of us.


    I remember it. Was fun back than. Stacking players with deep pockets in one association and then move half of the cities players through that asso after the successfull bid.Missing that.

    We did this too in the past when there was no restriction for changing asso's. So smaller asso's could benifit of the workers richer asso's bought. But bach then it was done for the city progress and less for personal progress.

    Maybe think of some sort of city workers. All players who have set a city as home city can benifit of those workers. You can buy them with all registered at the same city.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -:engine1::engine1::engine1: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    If a turtle doesn’t have a shell, is he homeless or naked?

  • The game should be fun, and it should be playable in many different ways, but, something has gone seriously wrong over the years. IMO that something is anything but positive.


    The game used to be played, by the vast majority as an economic and co-operative game. Associations working together to develop a city and play in the end game. And, that was the fun in the little exploit of moving players from small associations through bigger ones so that everybody in the city benefitted - co-operation for the good of the city. Back then, I recall free-haulers pitching in with the levelling process in order to take advantage of the prestige perks of levelling.


    Contrast, if you will. (very recently)


    The associations cooperating in "The City" were surrounded by free-haulers whose only aim appeared to be to gain first personal place. To this end they continually invested in "The City's" facilities. Not a problem, well, it did not used to be, free-haulers respected the majorities of city builders. But, these free-haulers, better called prestige farmers made their investments almost exclusively in RG industries (occasionally in supply also) over and over again and each time breaking the majority in the industry. They would do this even while city players were actively levelling the city. Eventually we all ran out of money as tied to city growth we could not wander around, as free haulers do, and make big money by hauling premium goods only.


    I wrote, very politely, to the chairs or deputies of several of the players doing this. A couple of them replied sympathetically and the behaviour stopped. A couple did not bother to reply and the behaviour continued. And, one replied that if I complained about it again they would set our association to rivals and increase the behaviour. Needless to say, I dared not say anything further and we struggled on but, none of us even completed upgrading our stations we simply could not keep pace with the financial strain. My association lost at least one player who will not be returning to the game due to this and the majority of players in another association will not be back I am told. These same players whose association hauled in the end-game for another city, even came and destroyed the waiting times in our city then took the majorities of those industries while they were the "called" goods even though we were absolutely no threat to their end-game position. So, they could only have done it for individual prestige.


    If this situation is not caused by the erosion of the balance between city builders and free-haulers then perhaps someone has another answer.


    That round was most definitely NOT fun.


    I have absolutely no desire to stop anybody's fun, but, nor do I want to play where some players are able to destroy the game of others consciously and with impunity. I am absolutely certain that this is not what RN intend to happen. I believe the only way to stop this is to strengthen the city players' prestige and financial rewards so they can compete. But, I noticed on the new x4 announcement that these elements have been downgraded for city deliveries. I wanted to play x4 again (It was great fun and a very happy environment although very intense). But, doubt I will be bothering.

  • If this situation is not caused by the erosion of the balance between city builders and free-haulers then perhaps someone has another answer.

    Players changed. The balance was even changed in favour of city builders. It seems a lot bored city drivers became free haulers. Seems like some of them don't really know how to play as free hauler. And of course you may know the saying 10% of all people are arseholes. You can do the math to know what happens if the number of free haulers raises.


    The prestige received for investments in industries was reduced over a year ago Changelog for Update 4.13.0 because of the problems you just had. Prestige for halving waiting time was reduced too. Profit for hauling passengers from the neighbouring cities was raised to help city drivers and profit for hauling from cities far far away was decreased so free haulers make less money.